- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzTouched a sensitive spot, have I?
How would you know? Involved in the study of abiogenesis are you? If not, I suggest you remain silent - you apparently have no knowledge.
Whenever you examine any evidence with regards to origins you have to base the evidence on certain presuppositions.
Prove me wrong.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio1) Yes.
I have two questions for you, KellyJay, and I believe that in answering
them clearly, you will clear up any confusion that anyone might have.
1) Do you believe that one 'faith' system is better than any other? By
better, I take this to mean that a person should be more compelled to
believe it rather than another 'faith' system.
2) If so, what are t merely asks for a list of criteria and,
if necessary, definitions of the same.
Nemesio
2) You can evaluate your faith system based on the following three tests of truth: a) Logical consistency b) Empirical adequacy c) Experiential relevance
From dj2becker:
>
> Originally posted by scottishinnz
> No, it was Muffy. Prove me wrong.
>
> So are you a Muffin now?
>
> I thought you were an atheist?
He's obviously seen the light, you should be pleased.
Now can you explain why its more likely to be God rather than Muffy who created life?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo to elaborate (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to be accused of willful misinterpreting):
1) Yes.
2) You can evaluate your faith system based on the following three tests of truth: a) Logical consistency b) Empirical adequacy c) Experiential relevance
DJ2Becker firmly believes that people should be more compelled to believe in his faith system (presumably one of the many forms of christianity) than any other such as Hinduism, buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Animism, Jainism, Paganism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, the various other forms of christianity or any number of more obscure or faded faith systems.
He also firmly believes that all of these systems can be evaluated and found lacking when compared with the one he follows (since if there was a better one, he would be following that instead).
Is this correct?
If so, would he care to elaborate on why they fail? You need to do every one, just a couple of the more familiar ones would do. I'd like to be able to explain to some committed buddhist friends of mine why they are misguided in their choice of faith.
So far as I can tell all these faiths are as logically consistant as each other since when an inconsistancy is pointed out, they all tend to fall back on ' did it'. Well, budhism doesn't since it does not recognise any deities which I think puts it ahead of the mainstream montheistic religions on this point. I think the problem here is the ones whose sacred texts actually claim to say how Life/The Universe/Everything all started.
I'm not quite sure what Empirical Adequacy means but if you mean some kind of testability then they they are all equally testable: if the test, such as all the methods we know for dating rocks disagrees with scripture you can just say ' made it to look like that'. If you mean something else, please explain it with examples (I need to be spoon fed like KellyJay, or was it JayWill).
Again, I'm a bit confused by 'Experiential Relevance'. I'd be very surprised if there were not vast numbers of advocates of all the above faiths who have just as strong experiences relevant to their faiths as DJ has to his so they are all probably equally valid on that test as well. Again please explain if I've misunderstood the meaning of the term.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by dj2beckerSpeculation and wishful thinking?
Unfortunately all three times you spoke about Abiogenesis you forgot to include the observable, reproducable scientific evidence which would make it a viable scientific theory.
All I got from you is a lot of speculation and wishful thinking.
That's rich coming from you.
No matter how much you might like it or want ti to be true, there is no link - I'll say it again in capitals since everyone seems to like that for emphasis - NO LINK between evolution and the origin of life.
To suggest otherwise is like suggesting a link between the theory of continental drift and the flying spaghetti monster.
Evolutionary scientists might make some statements or even conduct experiments in the origin of life field - same as many scientists cross the boundaries between disciplines.
Understanding eolution does not require an understanding of how life began - it only requires life to exist - which is why so many Christians can comfortably live with the theory of evolution. Since a working model of life's origins does not yet exist (no matter what Scott might tell us) it's quite possible for a (non-raving) Christian to suggest that God created life for evolution to do its thing.
I'm not suggesting that of course, since I'm an atheist - but the possibility exists - which takes me back to my original question in Post #1.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, but you are waffling on as if you have the first clue about either this subject or the study of science in general. You have demonstrated a lack of any type of clue whatsoever, so I'm merely offering prudent advice.
Touched a sensitive spot, have I?
Whenever you examine any evidence with regards to origins you have to base the evidence on certain presuppositions.
Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot nice Mr. Scott.
I have a plan for you. It involves your break lines, a cliff and excessive speed.
However funny to a certain extent.
I will ask YOU again:
PROVE THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG
This should be easy for any evolutionist or atheist who doesn't know
what the word 'truth' is.
Don't you guys have dictionaries????????
How old are y'all anyhow?????
There are over 2006 posts, and y'all still
sound like a bunch a kids in a school yard.
Oh, yeah, if I may reiterate (oops spelling may be wroing>>>😉:
PROVE THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG
C'mon, let's hear it gang!
I know that SOME of y'all are a little intelligent
so it should be VERY easy
right?
Originally posted by NosracOkay, Genesis one. it gets the order of creation wrong when it stipulates land plants were created before the sun. This is obviously wrong according to science, but I've shown why it can be explained as a story.
Not nice Mr. Scott.
However funny to a certain extent.
I will ask YOU again:
PROVE THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG
This should be easy for any evolutionist or atheist who doesn't know
what the word 'truth' is.
Don't you guys have dictionaries????????
How old are y'all anyhow?????
There are over 2006 posts, and y'all still
sound like a bunch ...[text shortened]... know that SOME of y'all are a little intelligent
so it should be VERY easy
right?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinI really don't have the time right now to go into all of that.
So to elaborate (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to be accused of willful misinterpreting):
DJ2Becker firmly believes that people should be more compelled to believe in his faith system (presumably one of the many forms of christianity) than any other such as Hinduism, buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Animism, Jainism, Paganism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastri ...[text shortened]... Again please explain if I've misunderstood the meaning of the term.
--- Penguin
But, I would suggest you look up 'Ravi Zacharias' and read some of his books.
Here's one for starters:
"Jesus Among Other Gods"
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/4522082d00c13a34271d45579e7c0602/Product/View/SBK9
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinNow can you explain why its more likely to be God rather than Muffy who created life?
From dj2becker:
>
> [b]Originally posted by scottishinnz
> No, it was Muffy. Prove me wrong.
>
> So are you a Muffin now?
>
> I thought you were an atheist?
He's obviously seen the light, you should be pleased.
Now can you explain why its more likely to be God rather than Muffy who created life?
--- Penguin.[/b]
God's revelation to mankind.
Originally posted by dj2beckerChristianity is not logically consistent. No faith system is. The abscence of logic is almost the escence of faith. It is the acceptance of something without the support of logic. Most faith systems go a step furthur and become the acceptance of something inspite of the existence of conflicting logic. Christianity is based on the belief in an entity (God) that is capable of defying the laws of physics as well as logic. Of course this is normaly explained away by Christians as being logic on a 'higher plane' that us mortals cannot understand.
1) Yes.
2) You can evaluate your faith system based on the following three tests of truth: a) Logical consistency b) Empirical adequacy c) Experiential relevance